and Tarrant, J.
1. The contention is that, as there was other land of the original mortgagor which the second defendant, the second mortgagee, might have attached and sold for realization of the mortgage amount, he ought in equity to be required to realize from that land instead of the portion of the mortgaged land which plaintiff purchased.
2. The purchase of plaintiff was subject to existing encumbrances, and there is no foundation for his contention that the mortgagee should be thus deprived of what are his legal rights.
3. We must dismiss the second appeal.